I personally don't support Perry in the 2012 election (for both policy and other reasons), but being President of the US is not a quiz show contest to see who has the best memory. Having a good memory in a televised debate does not necessarily make a good president, and is not even a very good indicator of intelligence IMO. It is usually more productive to discuss the merits of the various policies that each candidate advocates, and not whether the candidate can recount all the details of their position from memory. Maybe things are different in your country.

The Third Reich was lead by many very intelligent and high educated men, who enjoyed the Opera at night, and committed genocide during their day job.

In the UK the prime minister normally has previously been leader of the opposition before being elected. They therefore get a lot of public exposure and will be pulled apart if they don't perform. You just have to see how Prime Minister's Question time works in parliament to see that most American presidential candidates like this wouldn't last a year as leader of the opposition in the UK. Iain Duncan Smith illustrated this some years ago. Gordon Brown also did in his own way by becoming Prime Minister having held the Chancellorship for 10 years and things fell apart badly for the next 3 years:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFl_evwML2M

Maybe one difference is that your presidential job is nothing at all like the prime minsiter in the UK. The prime minsiter here is just a normal person, nothing more. There is no special crime for endangering, killing or threatening them. We reserve such crimes for the monarchy (although this is archaic and treason no longer carries the death penalty since 1998). In the US you still have special crimes for such acts against the president. You also have to call them 'Mr President'. Mr Cameron is just that, Mr Cameron. I would expect him to address me in similar terms too. A US president is also made for life, regardless of how they perform. In the UK prime ministers might end up in the house of Lords but little more. John Major just goes to watch the cricket and sometimes does an interview. A quiet retirement.

In the US a president automatically gets a state funeral, here we don't do that. Only 5 prime minsiters have been offered one, Disraeli turned the offer down and Wellington got his for his army career than his political career. So in some ways what you elect in the US is closer to our monarchy than our political leadership.

In the US a president automatically gets a state funeral, here we don't do that. Only 5 prime minsiters have been offered one, Disraeli turned the offer down and Wellington got his for his army career than his political career. So in some ways what you elect in the US is closer to our monarchy than our political leadership.

State funeral? Not sure what you are talking about, but the US President is the Commander in Chief of the US Military (specifically stated in the US Constitution). I don't recall any "state" funerals for former US Presidents no longer in office, but they are entitled to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, like any former US military, and some military will be present at their funeral.

Clearly the US President has more power than a PM in any country, but that power is often tempered by the fact that the PM is always elected by the majority in Parliament, so the PM and Parliament are often more closely aligned politically than may exist in the US between the Congress and the President. But you are correct that PM's tend to have much better debating and speaking skills than US Presidents, partly because they have a lot more practice and partly because it is a requirement of being PM.

Bottom line is that attacking Perry for a memory lapse during a debate is really a cheap shot IMO. Better to talk about what you don't like about Perry's proposals, even if Perry cannot remember what the details are in a debate.

Maybe you're right, but how you can discuss those merits when you don't remenber which are the various policies you want to discuss about? This is not a television quiz.

It was a minor slip. He said he wanted to cut 3 government agencies, but only remembered the name of two of them off-hand. That memory lapse did not prevent anyone from debating the issues.

In the US, people judge the winner of the debate by how well they perform as a "debater" and don't consider which positions are the most appropriate. So if Adolf Hitler had better debating skills than Harry Truman, and the two debated at the end of WWII on TV, then the media (and apparently some here) would say that Hitler won the debate, irrespective of the positions they exposed.

I just gave a look to some videos on the Internet: if he wanted to say "two agencies", while said "three" as a lapsus (and then the stress drove him in a sort of conversational "cul de sac"), it *may* even be a minor slip. Otherwise no, as you can't waive out anything you couldn't name.

I just gave a look to some videos on the Internet: if he wanted to say "two agencies", while said "three" as a lapsus (and then the stress drove him in a sort of conversational "cul de sac"), it *may* even be a minor slip. Otherwise no, as you can't waive out anything you couldn't name.

It is ridiculous to debate whether it was a minor slip. Personally, I don't agree with many of Perry's ideas on eliminating or cutting those agencies, and that is a lot more important than whether he can remember exactly which agencies he wants to cut in the middle of a live debate. Most of the people on this forum would start peeing in their pants if they were debating in front of a live national TV audience.

What is needed for US president is someone with good policies, not someone who is a good debater. Maybe only good debaters are needed as PM in the UK due to the Parliamentary form of government.

Maybe that is why some countries are in political disarray right now. It doesn't have to be that way, and has not always been that way, at least in the US. Being able to peform on live TV is relatively new.

The GOP has no interest in winning this election either. they just want to stir up as much shit as possible but make sure that the black man from hawaii is still holding the wheel of this country that W/rove/cheney drove over the cliff at full speed.

if their nominee looks like they might have even the slightest chance at winning, christine o'donnell (or bachmann, or some other god wacko) will be announced as the running mate to make sure the fight gets thrown. -Just like they did when they put palin on the ticket.

_________________Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

The GOP has no interest in winning this election either. they just want to stir up as much shit as possible but make sure that the black man from hawaii is still holding the wheel of this country that W/rove/cheney drove over the cliff at full speed.

if their nominee looks like they might have even the slightest chance at winning, christine o'donnell (or bachmann, or some other god wacko) will be announced as the running mate to make sure the fight gets thrown. -Just like they did when they put palin on the ticket.

Looks to me that Democrats are recruiting wackos to discredit the Republican "black man," since we all know that Democrats own the blacks and will not stand for anyone who is black and who is a Republican to run against their own "black man".

Don't you know the meaning of the expression "since ever", or did I do some grammar mistake?

The alternative could be that you aren't aware of most of human history since homo erectus walked on earth, but frankly this alternative is ridicolous and I won't take it into account.

Anyway, you're right, it isn't important what Perry said. What really matters is that there isn't another "moron" there, at your candid house: from that tragic 9-11 to Iraq war, from Enron to Goldman Sachs, IMVHO US people (and most of the world) has already paid for this sort of error.

Don't you know the meaning of the expression "since ever", or did I do some grammar mistake?

The alternative could be that you aren't aware of most of human history since homo erectus walked on earth, but frankly this alternative is ridicolous and I won't take it into account.

Anyway, you're right, it isn't important what Perry said. What really matters is that there isn't another "moron" there, at your candid house: from that tragic 9-11 to Iraq war, from Enron to Goldman Sachs, IMVHO US people (and most of the world) has already paid for this sort of error.

Actually, no. "since ever" is not used in the US. Maybe UK English, but I don't really know. Maybe you meant “since when”?

I am sure that in your own mind, all the world’s problems can be blamed on Bush and the Republicans, but I don't think that analysis holds ups under scrutiny. You are not even remotely interested in the truth, only in political demagoguery and name calling, so civilized discussion of these issues is useless.

Having a good memory in a televised debate does not necessarily make a good president, and is not even a very good indicator of intelligence IMO.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

I have in the past stood up in a room of 150 people, few of which I knew and not had such a massive cock-up as that, and yes I did forget points that I later realised that I had failed to voice, but I was spontaneous with no preparation at all due to not having any plans to speak - Perry has no such excuse, he should not have forgotten such an important point, and he should have had that written down on the off-chance that he should forget.

Quote:

It is usually more productive to discuss the merits of the various policies that each candidate advocates, and not whether the candidate can recount all the details of their position from memory.

In general terms I agree with you, however he is a politician and as such should know that such errors will end up in a public-flogging as we have already seen, thus he made himself look "stupid" or "forgetful", either of these does not look good for a potential president of America - and that very point makes my worried that we will end up with another moron like Bush jnr.

Quote:

The Third Reich was lead by many very intelligent and high educated men, who enjoyed the Opera at night, and committed genocide during their day job.

Quote:

So if Adolf Hitler had better debating skills than Harry Truman, and the two debated at the end of WWII on TV, then the media (and apparently some here) would say that Hitler won the debate, irrespective of the positions they exposed.

I do not want this thread closed, but it is pretty obvious that "Godwin's Law" has already happened and by definition m0002a has already lost

edh has already given a fine answer to this so I will just add a couple of other points - in the UK there has only "ever" been 3 TV debates by potential future political leaders of the UK and that was only last year. The politics in the UK and America are quite different in a number of ways - there is a constant live feed of the debates in the House of Commons, this then ends up in the news, and each and every cock-up is highlighted and then used by the opponents of the person who cocked up, which also ends up in the news - Perry would very rapidly look like the moron he obviously is if he entered UK politics, and would be a constant source of amusement - UK politics is much more refined than in America, yet at the same time much harsher and not based on the principal of "buying votes via huge marketing campaigns".

It is simply easier to not even stray onto that subject, but rather to keep to the point.

America is very important for the whole world's economies and safety, so it is in my own personal interest to be concerned with a possible American president who is a half-with like JW, whether or not I agree with his points is also of great concern to me, but as you can imagine American politics isn't talked about or even in the news a great deal in the UK unless someone has a massive cock-up like this.

I have identified a number of UK politicians that I respect a great deal even though I don't support their party or agree with many things that they believe in or stand for, likewise there are a number who's ideas and policy's I like, but the person who has come up with them is never going to get far in the political arena because they cannot communicate effectively, or constantly make blunders like the one Perry made (but not as bad) - that is the world of politics - a silver tongue is important as is image - image includes how people "see" that politician, ugly, lacking in confidence or being fat wont go down well - but stupid is another problem altogether.

Hopefully Perry wont get in, and I also hope that the red team (that is blue in America, unlike the rest of the planet) will get back in with a giant majority and both houses and the president so something actually gets done. This is I believe very unlikely to happen, but a giant majority and both houses and the president all on the same side can only be a good thing with the way American politics works - the way I see it is that America is in such a bad way currently that anything is better than the stalemate that we have seen, where nothing happens, and when it does it is so watered down it wasn't worth doing - just look at the long overdue health system in America - its basically Medieval, and it hasn't changed in the last 3-years a whole lot even though that was one of Obama's main fights.

Quote:

It is ridiculous to debate whether it was a minor slip. Personally, I don't agree with many of Perry's ideas on eliminating or cutting those agencies, and that is a lot more important than whether he can remember exactly which agencies he wants to cut in the middle of a live debate.

It could only have been worse if he had said, Military or Police or Education, if he had mentioned any of those then he would have been crucified regardless of whether it was "a minor slip" or not (in the UK, Health would be at the top of the list of things not to say that you are cutting - not a problem in America though.

I am sure that in your own mind, all the world’s problems can be blamed on Bush and the Republicans, but I don't think that analysis holds ups under scrutiny. You are not even remotely interested in the truth, only in political demagoguery and name calling, so civilized discussion of these issues is useless.

I don't think that any sane person would actually say that and believe it, but there is a good and solid point there in the classic "blame game".

The person (people) who are in power when things go bad get attacked because it was on their watch, this is no different from a bank-robbery going on whilst the bank guard is sleeping "on their watch", or the manager of a football team getting the sack because the team is playing badly - however football managers don't get a lot of time to fix problems when things go bad, politicians do when they are in power, especially when they have 2 terms and a house majority to push things through - that is when it is perfectly fair to blame them for steering the ship into the rocks at the foot of a lighthouse.

Personally I wouldn't blame Bush and his cohort for everything, but there are many things that they can easily be blamed for and rightly so, but that is also true of politicians worldwide and anyone else in the position of authority when something goes pear-shaped, Tony Hayward, George Bush jnr, Tony Blair, Richard Syron to name just a few.

No, it was just a preposition, like "from" (time). Read it as "always" or "since God created the earth". I'm sorry to speak a different language.

m0002a wrote:

I am sure that in your own mind, all the world’s problems can be blamed on Bush and the Republicans

Absolutely no: you're completely wrong (as I often see when you write here).

I just talk about responsibility: when someone is in command, he is (the major) responsible for what happens. Not "guilty" or "culprit", which is another concept, just responsible. So mr. Bush Jr. was surely unable to prevent or counteract certain phenomena or events, and there was no one else who should have done it for him during those eight years.

That is absurd. I did not compare anyone's beliefs to the Nazi's or Adolf Hitler.

What I said is that the architects of Nazi Germany were very intelligent and cultured men. They committed genocide in the day, and enjoyed Verdi in the evenings. I am not saying that intelligent and cultured people are Nazi's or barbarians (nor did I say anyone on this forum is one). I said there is no necessary relationship between intelligence/culture and evil/good. So in actuality, instead of comparing anyone to Nazi's, I am saying there is no correlation. This is against others who say Perry is evil because his memory is not so good.

Or more succinctly, as Socrates pointed out, rhetoric in general (and what the Sophists are skilled at) is the ability to make the poorer argument appear to be the better. Smooth speaking and rhetoric is merely a skill than can be used to persuade for good or evil. There is no correlation between the good skills at rhetoric and the Good (as opposed to evil if you don’t read Plato).

As far as your ability to speak in front of large crowds without pissing in your pants, you are probably the exception, which does not prove the rule.

Absolutely no: you're completely wrong (as I often see when you write here).

I just talk about responsibility: when someone is in command, he is (the major) responsible for what happens. Not "guilty" or "culprit", which is another concept, just responsible. So mr. Bush Jr. was surely unable to prevent or counteract certain phenomena or events, and there was no one else who should have done it for him during those eight years.

Your recollection of history is quite different than mine.

- Bill Clinton tried to assassinate Osama bin Laden, and the 9-11 conspiracy was conceived shortly thereafter as a result, and then carried out a couple years later in 2001 after the pilots got flight training.

- Bill Clinton deregulated the banking industry to allow credit default swaps to be sold by banks. His Secretary of Treasury (Simon) championed the bill to deregulate, and he later became head of Citibank which got bailed out by the US government.

- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created under Roosevelt to encourage home ownership. These quasi-Federal agencies purchase home loans made by banks right after the loans are made, so the banks that initiate the loans have no real incentive to make sure the loans can be paid back. This has been championed by Democrats, who see this as a way to help poor people get home loans. Obama's former Chief of Staff was on the board of directors of these Freddie Mac, as were many other political cronies. This is the fundamental underlying reason for the housing boom/bust that has wrecked the economy. Even Obama has suggested getting rid of these agencies.

I don't mean to completely absolve Bush or the Republicans, but on balance, the majority of the blame is on Clinton and the Democrats, and Obama has not done much to make things better.

In fact, Obama has spent tens of millions prosecuting (supposedly for lying about steroids, etc, which are not themselves illegal) former athletes like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Lance Armstrong, but has not prosecuted any of the Wall Street thieves who have robbed the US Treasury and the American people and who continue to plunder the world economy and get mufti-million dollar salaries/bonuses for doing so.

Looks to me that Democrats are recruiting wackos to discredit the Republican "black man," since we all know that Democrats own the blacks and will not stand for anyone who is black and who is a Republican to run against their own "black man".

it wouldnt surprise me one bit. dems learned well from birthers how to dig up fake newz and make it stick.

_________________Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

I think the forgotten point was avoidable, and shows poor preparation.

The larger problem is he wants to *eliminate* 3 whole departments -- I would hope he had good reasons for why each is not required, but it doesn't seem like it was thought through very well. The Department of Energy does things that are important, and to plunk them on a list without a reason is the height of arrogance. If he had actual reasons for wanting to do it, he might have had a better chance of remembering all three.

Besides -- the President of the United States cannot just eliminate pieces and parts of the government. Congress has to write the bill, pass it, and then the president can sign it.

Education, Commerce and Energy -- all three are just about the most important things our government has to do to improve our lives.

I think the forgotten point was avoidable, and shows poor preparation.

The larger problem is he wants to *eliminate* 3 whole departments -- I would hope he had good reasons for why each is not required, but it doesn't seem like it was thought through very well. The Department of Energy does things that are important, and to plunk them on a list without a reason is the height of arrogance. If he had actual reasons for wanting to do it, he might have had a better chance of remembering all three.

Besides -- the President of the United States cannot just eliminate pieces and parts of the government. Congress has to write the bill, pass it, and then the president can sign it.

Education, Commerce and Energy -- all three are just about the most important things our government has to do to improve our lives.

I rarely agree with you, but on this point I do--in that we should focus on whether the propsal to get rid of (or scale down) these agencies is a good or bad idea, rather than engage in name-calling (moron, etc) just becasue Perry's memory is not so great.

It might be due to the fact that I don't try to pass off arguments which turn correlations into causations (at best).

As a matter of facts Clinton didn't fail to kill a reputable business man, but a dangerous terrorist, and USA intelligence under Bush government made lots of errors and underestimations against him, while the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 didn't authorize lenders and borrowers to lie; moreover you blame a Roosevelt's 70 years old regulation and not the banks who deliberately fail their due of diligence, the law but not the illegal guilty greed, and so on. And definitely, if some years later such an act something has gone wrong, well, probably those who have handled the underlying situations all those subsequent years can really be blamed.

Eventually, it might be true, your recollection of history is quite different from mine, or from reality: indeed it looks like me more an interpretation "pro domo tua", than a recollection.

It might be due to the fact that I don't try to pass off arguments which turn correlations into causations (at best).

As a matter of facts Clinton didn't fail to kill a reputable business man, but a dangerous terrorist, and USA intelligence under Bush government made lots of errors and underestimations against him, while the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 didn't authorize lenders and borrowers to lie; moreover you blame a Roosevelt's 70 years old regulation and not the banks who deliberately fail their due of diligence, the law but not the illegal guilty greed, and so on. And definitely, if some years later such an act something has gone wrong, well, probably those who have handled the underlying situations all those subsequent years can really be blamed.

Eventually, it might be true, your recollection of history is quite different from mine, or from reality: indeed it looks like me more an interpretation "pro domo tua", than a recollection.

I didn't say I blame FDR, I was just giving you the history of the Fannie Mae, etc. As far as encouraging lenders to lie, you can thank Barnie Frank and other Democrats in Congress who forced Fanniew Mae to loosen credit to poor people. It turns out that what the lenders did was usually not illegal, since it was actually authorized by Congress.

Regarding USA intellegence under Bush, the CIA director (George Tenet) who told Bush that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk," was appointed by Bill Clinton. BTW, one the main objectives of invading Iraq was to encourage democracy in all of the Middle East, so even though we can blame Bush for the mistakes in Iraq, we have to give him some credit for the Arab Spring (although it will be many years before we know how that turns out).

That is absurd. I did not compare anyone's beliefs to the Nazi's or Adolf Hitler.

What I said is that the architects of Nazi Germany were very intelligent and cultured men. They committed genocide in the day, and enjoyed Verdi in the evenings. I am not saying that intelligent and cultured people are Nazi's or barbarians (nor did I say anyone on this forum is one). I said there is no necessary relationship between intelligence/culture and evil/good. So in actuality, instead of comparing anyone to Nazi's, I am saying there is no correlation.

Its a fine line, and I have fallen foul of mentioning the "N" word or the "H" word before and all that happens is that the topic goes south - I just thought that I should mention that avoidance of those words in any context at all is the top of a slippery-slope. I will not say any more on this matter.

Quote:

This is against others who say Perry is evil because his memory is not so good.

I wouldn't say that anyone is "evil" because their memory isn't good, I would say he is evil simply because of what he believes in and how those beliefs will propagate if he were to become president and are currently propagating because he is already in a position of power, those evils include telling people that evolution is not a fact - this then propagates to other idiots who then teach children all sorts of rubbish and generally does America great harm. There are others, such as being a gun-pushing idiot, this will almost certainly end up in many innocent lives being lost - therefore, I conclude that his beliefs are "evil" and through his power of office damage is already being done, it would be much worse if he was the President.

Quote:

Education, Commerce and Energy -- all three are just about the most important things our government has to do to improve our lives.

Those 3 are pretty serious, but there is a 4th that has been missed - free universal health-care, which Obama has been trying to push through for how long........ with no major success due to the powers opposing him.

America is a pretty screwed up place is many ways, in others it is very good, but lots of things need to change, and many of them have to be very large changes in American politics, the way the government works and of course fixing all of those things in America that are so very wrong.

Every time I look at the UK and see where it could be doing better I look at other countries and compare the UK to them, America usually not at the top of the list of ideals, France, Germany, the Netherlands (Holland) and the Nordic countries usually are at the top of the list (made in no particular order) for a number of different points that includes things such as Education, Health, Science and Engineering, the Arts, Manufacturing, the divide between rich and poor, law and crime, the environment, the percentage of unemployed, the freedom of the press, and so on and so forth.

There are very few of those things where America is a shining beacon and I would like to see that change (not just in America, but everywhere), specifically these things would be good for me in an in-direct way, and this is the reason why I am interested in America moving forwards and not backwards - that means America must sort out its economy and drastically reduce the unemployment rate, whilst at the same time sorting out all of Americas social issues - that is a very tall order and it will take decades to fix and it will be very painful in the short term (the next 5-years).

However if you have another Idiot like Bush jnr in the White House, the entire worlds view of America will be tarnished again - but unless there is a strong, single minded American government things will continue to stagnate - I would like to see the red camp win (blue in America) - America is way to right-wing hardcore Conservative to sort out its problems, and this comes from a lifetime Conservative voter who watched our previous Labour government (that's red (blue in America) left-wing) bankrupt our country to the tune of just under £1 billion because they simply spent more money than they were gaining in tax revenue - they are Idiots - and yes they also get the full blame for our current debt crisis, they had a perfect opportunity to keep the budget deficit low, but they carried on spending money they didn't have for 12-years, and as such we are now paying £43 billion per year just to pay the interest on the debt. ~By the way the national debt in the US is over twice that of the UK per capita even taking into account the exchange rate - so I consider myself luck that I am not an American.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum